|
8. Approaches to Parapsychology
Our
reasons for being in parapsychology may also inform our approaches to the field.
Those interested in showing the existence of aspects which transcend the
physical existence of human beings may conduct a type of parapsychological
research designed to support those ideas. The studies of Alan Gauld (1968) and
Silvio Ravaldini (1983) on the life and work of
Frederic Myers and
Ernesto Bozzano, respectively, offer us insights on the methods they followed to explore
their passion for the survival issue. Both researchers conducted extensive
bibliographical studies that attempted to combine different types and gradations
of cases in away that would favor the survival perspective. In addition,
Bozzano's (n.d.) desire to prove survival led him to develop his concept of
psychic rapport which separated telepathy from spirit communication through
mediums. In his view, telepathy worked only when there was some type of link
between persons, such as an emotional link or an object in common. In
mediumistic communications it was not unusual to find veridical cases with no
links between the medium and living persons. In these cases, Bozzano argued,
telepathy would not work and the case indicated discarnate agency. More
recently, others have proposed other demarcation criteria between ESP from the
living and survival-related influences (Schwartz, Russek, Nelson, & Barenstsen,
2001; Stevenson, 1974b). Regardless of the validity of these ideas, the point
here is how different conceptual approaches in survival have guided work in the
field.
J. B. Rhine's work is a reminder of the use of parapsychology for particular
purposes. Anyone who has read J. B. Rhine's New World of the Mind (1953b) will
remember that Rhine did not limit his work to a defense of a nonphysical
conception of the human mind from the results of experimental psi research. He
also attempted to extend the implications of his card and dice tests to
religion, philosophy, and more practical issues such as an ethic of behavior and
a rejection of communism.
Another more extreme example is the Catholicism-based parapsychology developed
by Oscar González Quevedo, a Spanish parapsychologist and Jesuit priest living
in Brazil. He argues that parapsychology allows us to arrive at particular
demarcation criteria between the supernatural and the parapsychological
(González Quevedo, 1996; see also Omez, 1956/1958). I believe most of us would
agree that the concept of the supernatural (or the direct influence of God on
the world) is a problematic one, especially in terms of the constant expansion
of science. Furthermore, González Quevedo has argued that phenomena such as ESP
are properties of the soul. Granted this, the powers cannot be manifested
consistently through the human body because the body had lost the property (or
state of grace) for channeling them ([González] Quevedo, 1969/1971, Chapter 36;
see also Wiesinger,
1948/1957). Religious reasoning explains in part why this
author postulates we should not induce nor develop psychic phenomena. Followers
of this system do not conduct empirical studies, depending instead on analyses
of published material. I have also been informed by one of our Brazilian PA
members (Wellington Zangari) that members of González Quevedo's parapsychology
group are not allowed to question his theoretical explanations and that only
members of his inner sanctum are allowed to use his library, which is reputed to
be rich in historical materials. So the religious influence (or mentality)
extends beyond the conceptual into the structure of his organization and the
social roles allowed to his followers. Fortunately for the future of
parapsychology in Brazil, this archaic form of the field is rapidly declining.
The last ten years have seen the rise of a new breed of scientific
parapsychologists in Brazil, all PA members, who are changing the field (Zangari
& Machado,
2001). The most prominent members of this group include Fatima Regina
Machado, Fabio da Silva, and Wellington Zangari.
Another important conceptual issue which divides some parapsychologists from
others is the current dichotomy between those who conduct work following
unconventional or conventional explanatory models (see
Palmer, 1986). For some
the only real parapsychological work is that which is conducted using procedures
that emphasize the interpretation of results as due to such new principles as
novel forms of communication. This explains why parapsychology is defined in the
glossary of the Journal of Parapsychology as the study of "certain paranormal
phenomena," and in turn paranormal is defined as a phenomenon that "exceeds the
limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific
assumptions" (Glossary, 2002, p. 427). Does this mean that to do parapsychology
or to be a parapsychologist one has to focus only on research based on models or
assumptions assumed to represent new forms of communication or new principles of
nature?
If we agree to this view we will be defending the idea that it is proper to
define a scientific field by a particular model or at least by a specific
overarching concept. But this is unnecessarily narrow and limiting. Psychology,
for example, has always been formed by a variety of concepts that have coexisted
with other ideas and, on occasion, some have simply been more dominant than
others (Robinson,
1986). While some practitioners define psychology by their
preferred theoretical orientation it is clear that the field is more than
particular models favored by some of us. For example, traditionally, hypnosis
researchers have been divided between those who claim that hypnosis is an
altered state or a form of dissociation and those who define the phenomena as
social roles (Lynn & Rhue, 1991). No one will say that one perspective is "real"
or "proper" hypnosis research over the other; what we have here are different
ways of explaining phenomena. Psychology encompasses different views of the
nature of the mind, or of human behavior, and the important overarching goal is
to understand the subject matter through any conceptual framework that is
helpful as opposed to defining and limiting the research enterprise to a single
explanatory model.
In terms of parapsychology it would be more productive if we defined the field
as the study of some phenomena that we do not understand but that may have a
variety of explanations. One can be a parapsychologist and conduct research
without assuming paranormality as previously defined. Parapsychologists study a
group of phenomena science still does not understand by trying to learn more
about the characteristics of the phenomena and their relationships to other
variables. This work need not be limited to particular assumptions. The task of
parapsychology is to understand the phenomena whether or not their final
explanation is conventional or unconventional. This wider perspective was
evident in the initial goals set by the SPR.
In the now classic Objects of the Society (1882) it was stated that to be in
psychical research "does not imply the acceptance of any particular explanation
of the phenomena investigated, nor any belief as to the operation in the
physical world, of forces other than those recognised by Physical Science" (p.
4). There are different approaches one may take to try to explain psi phenomena.
All are valid and necessary as long as they bring an understanding of the
subject matter. This is why defining a whole field of study only on the basis of
the paranormality of experiences (as previously defined) is short-sighted and may
prevent progress along different fronts. While it is valid to prefer and to
focus on testing specific theoretical models or processes, the tasks of
parapsychology as a whole should be centered on understanding the phenomena
whatever their nature may be and not in solely validating a single explanatory
model. Our task as scientists is to follow the data wherever it takes us.
Science in general has sometimes failed to do this when confronted with claims
such as those of ESP. Parapsychologists should not make the same mistake in
failing to follow alternative explanatory processes just because they are not
paranormal.
Having said this, we also need to remember the importance of those theoretical
views and approaches that challenge our worldviews and that seem unlikely to be
explained by the usual sensory-motor mechanisms; in other words, the paranormal
as defined before. It is precisely those ideas that may bring change and
important discoveries by challenging the established paradigms. I am not arguing
for the abandonment of such views, as long as they are kept empirical. Neither
am I proposing a parapsychology based only on conventional explanations. What I
propose is avoiding a definition of the field solely as a paranormal science, as
above defined.
Next part: 9. Legitimation
Strategies of Parapsychologists
|
